Cacarulo: Insurance Indices for KO (C-D)

[Cacarulo]

Insurance Indices for KO (C-D)

Conditions

A = Ace
T = Ten
Z = 8,9
L = 2,3,4,5,6,7

1D = 26/52 (0.5/1)
2D = 52/104 (1/2)
6D = 234/312 (4.5/6)
8D = 312/416 (6/8)

IRC = -4*decks

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

          | 1D  | 2D  | 6D  | 8D  | 

+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

| Generic  | -1  | -1  | -2  | -2  | 

|   A,A    | -4  | -4  | -3  | -3  | 

|   A,T    | -2  | -2  | -2  | -3  | 

|   A,Z    | -3  | -3  | -3  | -3  | 

|   A,L    | -3  | -3  | -2  | -3  | 

|   T,T    |  0  | -1  | -1  | -1  | 

|   T,Z    | -1  | -2  | -2  | -2  | 

|   T,L    | -1  | -1  | -1  | -2  | 

|   Z,Z    | -3  | -3  | -2  | -3  | 

|   Z,L    | -2  | -2  | -2  | -2  | 

|   L,L    | -1  | -1  | -2  | -2  | 

+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Note: The indices were calculated by simulation.

Enjoy!
Cacarulo

[walkingdood]

As I observed in an earlier post KO get's little if any value from the insurance index in a 6-8 deck game. In order to get more value, and after looking at BJRM, I have already lowered the RC at which I insure by one. Glad to see your sims agree with that move. If the player holds a TT then use the original KO index seems to be a new twist. Easy enough. Thanks again.

[Parker]

Do I have to beg?

:-)

BTW, this outstanding post should be archived.

[Cacarulo]

> As I observed in an earlier post KO get's
> little if any value from the insurance index
> in a 6-8 deck game.

Who said that? It's not true.

> In order to get more
> value, and after looking at BJRM, I have
> already lowered the RC at which I insure by
> one. Glad to see your sims agree with that
> move.

Wait a minute. Are you using the same IRC? My RC is lower because my IRC is lower.

> If the player holds a TT then use the
> original KO index seems to be a new twist.
> Easy enough. Thanks again.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[walkingdood]

> Who said that? It's not true.

Olaf and Vancura state at page 83 of KOBJ, referring to the insurance index play:
"It's worth 0.2% in a single deck game with a 1-10 spread but essentially nothing in athe 8 deck game."

Note that in the KO preferred versiondefined by O&V the index is always at +3. Olaf and Vancura use an IRC of (-4*#decks)+ 4. The suggested insurance index is the same for all decks at all penetrations.

> Wait a minute. Are you using the same IRC?
> My RC is lower because my IRC is lower.

-1 in your calculati0on would be the same as +3 in the KOBJ formulation which I do use. I am taking insurance at a +2RC equivalent to a -2 RC in your calculation. From looking at the charts, it seems to be a good choice except when holding TT.

Walkingdood

[Cacarulo]

> Olaf and Vancura state at page 83 of KOBJ,
> referring to the insurance index play:
> "It's worth 0.2% in a single deck game
> with a 1-10 spread but essentially nothing
> in athe 8 deck game."

Insurance is the most important play so I don't agree with this. You can try the following:

1) Run a sim with the C22 excluding INS that I've posted on this site. Use the same rules.
2) Get the SCORE.
3) Compare it against to what I've previously posted.

Let me know if the difference in SCORE is less than 0.2%.

> Note that in the KO preferred versiondefined
> by O&V the index is always at +3. Olaf and
> Vancura use an IRC of (-4*#decks)+ 4. The
> suggested insurance index is the same for
> all decks at all penetrations.

> -1 in your calculati0on would be the same as
> +3 in the KOBJ formulation which I do use. I
> am taking insurance at a +2RC equivalent to
> a -2 RC in your calculation. From looking at
> the charts, it seems to be a good choice
> except when holding TT.

Yes but it's not the same for any number of decks. Even if you have different penetrations the indices vary. I know they made some compromises but I prefer to learn the correct indices for the game I play.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Don Schlesinger]

> Let me know if the difference in SCORE is
> less than 0.2%.

The problem with all pre-SCORE statements concerning advantage is that they invariably talked about percentage edges at the games. So -- simply to make a point -- suppose a game had a tiny 0.2% edge, and then you added a mere 0.2% to that edge. Well, you just doubled your advantage and who knows what you did to the SCORE multiple!

Don

[Cacarulo]